.

Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B :

« I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. »
.

I wholeheartedly approve and applaud those words of wisdom of Sister Joan Chittister. They echo in my mind with memories I have of a couple of young ladies I have known in times gone by.

One, who was the sister of a friend of my wife, had a compulsive need to be constantly pregnant. I have no idea how many children she ended up having. No longer had she given birth, she was pregnant again. Children seemed to be swarming all over the place. But she never seemed to look after them. They more or less brought themselves up. She didn’t even seem to want children. She just wanted to be pregnant. We never saw her without a swollen womb.

We never met with any of the fathers. She was always alone with the children.

Another young lady we knew definitely wanted to have children, or, I should say, what she really appeared to be interested in was the act itself of giving birth. It seemed to be something of an obsession. She had two children when the couple broke up and divorced. She never had any more and didn’t seem very interested in bringing up the two she had.

I should describe the first young lady as pro-pregnancy and the second pro-birth. I hesitate to qualify either of them as pro-life. What happened to the children after birth didn’t seem to interest them at all.

So far as I know, the fathers, better described simply as biological genitors, never got involved.

.

Some think that actions to reduce population numbers will reduce poverty and preserve our planet. And some think the other way around, namely that actions towards reduction of poverty (that includes education) and of ecological exploitation will lead to reduction, or at least stagnation, of population numbers. The Pope apparently prefers the latter way of thinking.

Dear George,

Nevertheless, the pope still caricatures those concerned with population growth. You mention education. The Sustainable Population Association is very much for education especially for women so that they need not rely on motherhood for status. The birth rate can be reduced by lessening infant mortality so families won’t have many children in hopes some will survive. The pope does not mention contraception and sex education especially in regard to methods of contraception. Vatican roulette is not a reliable method for birth control.

At the Cairo population conference the representatives of the Catholic church allied themselves with the Muslim representatives. The agenda contained provision for contraceptives, access to abortion and education for women. The Catholic representatives opposed the first two, and the Muslim representatives opposed the latter. In return for the Catholics opposing education for women the Muslims opposed provisions for contraceptives and access to abortion.

As far as your implied contention that there is a conflict between reduction of poverty and ecological exploitation as against birth control there is none. The pope simply continues the Vatican opposition to birth control and abortion. Where such is available Catholic women generally ignore the Vatican dictates.

Dear david f,

I have already gathered that you do not agree with the Catholic position and practice (neither do I with most of the latter), and that in my nutshell formulation of the two approaches, your preference is rather for the first.

You are right that the Pope does not mention contraception, which for Catholics is a very meaningful fact, to the extent that he is being attacked for it by some conservatives.

.

It’s no secret that population growth in undeveloped countries largely exceeds population regression in developed countries. The poor are more prolific than the rich. What can we do about it ?

Stop the invading hoards ? Confine them to their wastelands ? Bomb them out of existence ? Lace their drinking water with sterilising agents ?

Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” may be seen as a good solution. No need to interfere with people’s lives. Just set the markets free and they’ll fix it.

No tariffs, no trade barriers, no privileges, no restrictions – free trade among all nations throughout the world. The poor become richer and adopt the life style of the rich. They have less children and their consummation of world resources drops dramatically.

I’m sure this would appeal to Pope Francis. It’s not difficult to guess why.

.

.

Oops ! Not "consummation". That's Franglais. Please read "consumption".

Sorry about that.

.